[Forrest Richardson]

I have asked this question previously — what exactly is new?

I mean, has golf architecture gone mad for hairy bunker edges, retro looks and recreations of days-gone-bye?

A friend/colleague in Europe recently sent me a note with the following text:  "I usually avoid renovations and tinkering around with other peoples work, I’d rather start from scratch....I simply lack the reverential attitude to old golf courses that seems so much in vogue in recent years. I find the hero worship of rediscovered architects and their dull offerings to be in poor taste. I’m sure that many of them would turn in their graves. I believe that they were just like you and me....having fun doing something they enjoyed..."

O.K.   So, have we seen anything new, or are a predominance of the celebrated designs discussed here just a bunch of of hash simmering on the flat grill?

[Gary Slatter]

From pictures of your work,  I'd think you are "new" and on the right track!   So's your friend in Europe.

[Sean_A]

Forest

That is quite a statement and to some degree I agree.  The only thing is, when guys do muck about how often do they improve a course?  My sense is what they often do is make courses more difficult and less interesting because of standardization.

There ain't much new and if you want to get down to it, the guy harping on about ODGs is likely making his crust off the ideas "formalized" and popularized by the ODGs.  That isn't to say that modern archies don't have talent, they do, but perhaps the biggest difference between old and new is a marked increase in MAGs (modern alive guys) willingness to move a LOT of dirt and essentially shape the hell out of everything. 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Have you been talking to Mike Young?   

[Tim Nugent]

Well, Forrest, you're starting to sound like Ron Whitten.  I think there is a lot "new" stuff, only nothing is really Dramatically New.  It's more an Incremental New.  And it's not necessarily in course design as it is in design delivery.  With the toll that the global economic malaise has produced, the age of Design by Plan is being replaced by the Field Design.  With fewer courses to oversee, Principal Architects are able to devote more time out of the office and on the ground, a place where Jr Architects used to cut their teeth.  The result is a much more experience eye and the ability to get by with less.  It will be interesting to see how the older generation of Arichitects deal with this.  Will they still be slaves to the need to produced plan sets or will they be able break away and "do it in the dirt"?
With the ability to spend much more time in the field and not chained to the "drafting board", coupled with the need to get the job done as economically as possible, will we see more Design/Build options?

I think we are in the midst of a watershed moment in history, the only problem is it's hard to see history when it's happening.

[BCrosby]

It's an all too convenient conceit for a modern architect to think that the ODG's were just out to have a good time. 

I would have thought that a serious modern architect would be troubled by such an idea.

Not just because it is false. But also because, if believed, it is a two-edged sword.

Bob 

[Forrest Richardson]

Bob — You pose a good question and make a good point. Now, let me ask this as follow-up (clarification): When you use the term "Modern Architect" you refer to those of us working today...would you hold the same opinion if your post had been made in 1925 (about the modern golf architects working then)...?

Why does Mike Young keep coming up in my posts and topics? In another discussion someone reasons that he might be related to me...!

[Forrest Richardson]

Here is a thought on this subject —

Golf architecture has exponential variables. And, I admit, it does come with many constraints, too. However, at the end of the day, the variables — the wide spectrum of choices for the designer — far outweighs the constraints.

When you consider the nearly endless choices and configurations of a golf course design — alternatives, routings, flow, hazards, shapes, x-y-z contours and forms, and all of the other detailing, lengths, widths, etc. that make up a golf course — it is very difficult to believe that we have exhausted the creativity of the art. Industrial design, landscape architecture, fashion design and film do not seem to have exhausted creativity — nor have they reverted exclusively to the past. Neither has golf course architecture — but, I submit that it has come close to this reality...a love for the past and reconstituting the old seems to have an edge when it comes to "being good" and worthy.

Have replica holes, pattern holes, celebrated designs (famous holes) and trends taken over? Is there creative blood out there willing to say, "No...wait a minute...we have yet to design all of the golf holes, figure out all of the hazards and craft all of the looks of a golf course..."

[Tom MacWood]

Shouldn't the question be 'what's good'? I think the goal should be to produce something good, not something new.

Your friend in Europe expresses an attitude that seems to be pretty common among many modern golf architects, and ironically it often comes from architects who have never really produced anything good or special. Is there a reason why architects revere their past designers and try to preserve their best work and golf architects are constantly saying "If they were alive today that dead architect would roll in his grave if he knew his work was being preserved or restored'? Do you think Frank Lloyd Wright or Alvar Aalto or Le Courbusier or Antonio Gaudi are rolling in their graves?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom McW. — As usual, you add great perspective. Good question(s).

I think the answer depends greatly on whether we allow (modern) golf architects to define what is good. I once asked Vernon Swaback, who worked with Mr. Wright, whether (at the time) the designs of Frank Llyod Wright were well accepted. His take was that it is much the same as it is today — breathtaking, and risk-taking design is admired by only a fraction of the public, and it is a hard sell unless you are dealing with the "in" crowd that seems to "get it."

What is odd to me is that golf architecture seems to be exactly opposite — in our art form, it (currently, anyway) is the re-hash of old designs and looks and styles that is adored and celebrated...while the risk-taking design is so often bashed and abused...and this abuse is ironically dished out by the "in" crowd who one would think would be embracing the work that departed from the past and had potential to open new doors to the art of designing golf courses.

[BCrosby]

Forrest asks:

"When you use the term "Modern Architect" you refer to those of us working today...would you hold the same opinion if your post had been made in 1925 (about the modern golf architects working then)...?"

No, I would not make the same statement about Golden Age architects. My statement rests on a simple empirical claim (that is, one we can test).

My empirical claim is that good architects of the GA generation were better than their predecessors. They had a better grasp of basic design principles, agronomy and all sorts of other things. They knew it at the time. And we know it now.

All generations of golf architects are not equal. That's why we call one generation a 'Golden Age'. There is a broad consensus that - due to a confluence of historical events - they designed a preponderance of the greatest courses around today.

The jury is still out on the current batch of architects. Where they will eventually stack up against their GA forbears is still unclear. At least to me.

But one thing we do know. The courses built by the best of the GA guys were not done on a lark. The GA was a high point. It wasn't just a series of happy accidents. Modern architects who treat those older designs cavalierly do so at their peril. They also do so at the peril of the discipline.

Bob      

  

[Steve Lang]

  I don't believe you can allow architects or critics to "define what's good" in an artform such as gca.. the public will take to it or not and if its good, sustain it over time, independent of the "in-crowd"

IMO its only the hangers on that wish to be in the in-crowd that need new meat to chew and spit out or feast upon, to make their names..

[Mike Hendren]

What's new?  Thankfully, everything old.

MIke

[Bill_McBride]

Why does Mike Young keep coming up in my posts and topics? In another discussion someone reasons that he might be related to me...!

I don't want to put words in Mike's mouth, but it seems to me that he often expresses the opinion that we overvalue the work done by the ODG's (old dead guys), and that a large number of Golden Age designs were built by farmers who were handed a set of plans and a routing by someone like Donald Ross who never set foot on the site.

I think you and Mike are both iconoclasts who are not afraid to do something new and bold, but I also think both of you design golf courses that exemplify (but not replicate) the best of what those Golden Age guys were doing long ago.

Of course I could be all wet.

But I gotta say I love a bunch of holes at both Las Palomas and Longshadow that would not have looked out of place in the olden days.

It may be there's nothing terribly new when it comes to strategic design and how it is accomplished.

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike — I believe you are the first at answer the question!

The question posed should not imply that I am against restoration of worthy golf courses. I applaud and support restoration of work that has lost its way over the years and has a pedigree that makes for a good, authentic story. It is great to see a neat, old course brought back, just as it is to see an old piece of art carefully retouched to its original luster.

But, such courses are a fraction of those that exist. The majority of work now is re-tooling older courses, of which the vast majority were created post WWII. In this era we saw the creation of the "instant course", many formula-based and run though housing, forced onto a block of land or thrown together with little regard for much else than getting it open. Not all of course  — but many.

So, today a lot of the work is renovating these "instant" layouts, either because it's necessary (they are falling apart) or a new owner wants to give it a re-birth and, hopefully, charge more for a membership or green fee. It is this body of work — together with the few new courses worldwide — that my question pertains to. What is new???

[Mike_Young]

Have you been talking to Mike Young?   

Come on....I am always giving the ODG's hell..but in a good way....And I don't move a bunch of dirt....my issue has always been when the reverence they were often given for things they did not do....many on here would not have played their courses if they had seen them then....so often years of good maintenance is mistaken for good design by many.....

[Forrest Richardson]

Bill — OK to cite Mike's work and mine in the same paragraph, so long as you are not trying to make us appear as first cousins!  

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike Y — You mean excellent condition is not good design!  

[Mike_Young]

So, today a lot of the work is renovating these "instant" layouts, either because it's necessary (they are falling apart) or a new owner wants to give it a re-birth and, hopefully, charge more for a membership or green fee. It is this body of work — together with the few new courses worldwide — that my question pertains to. What is new???

The above is exactly the case for so many projects.....BUT it is amazing how many think their "instant" course is a classic...AND they think the same about their wives....

[Bill_McBride]

Probably the remodeling -- definitely not restoration -- of Peacock Gap illustrates "what's new" more than any other course I can think of.

Peacock Gap was a pretty drab and boring track until you went in and spiced things up dramatically with a bunch of new, close-to-the-edge greens.  Greens like those are often referred to as "Mackenzie greens" in the UK.  

If the near future of golf architecture is remodeling of boring post-WWII courses, Peacock Gap is a good model.  You could never call it boring.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill — OK to cite Mike's work and mine in the same paragraph, so long as you are not trying to make us appear as first cousins!  

I'm originally from Georgia like Mike so I can say this:  Everybody in Georgia can eventually be proven to be first cousins!  You're probably okay.......

[Mike_Young]

Mike Y — You mean excellent condition is not good design!  

hmmm...should be...wouldn't you say excellent condition on a good design would be more efficient than excellent condition on a bad design?   AND IMHO a mediocre course with good maintenance has a better shot at a higher ranking than a good design with poor maintenance...and in times like these the good designs will rise above some of these others as maintenance budgets are cut....I think...

[Bill_McBride]

Mike Y — You mean excellent condition is not good design!  

hmmm...should be...wouldn't you say excellent condition on a good design would be more efficient than excellent condition on a bad design?   AND IMHO a mediocre course with good maintenance has a better shot at a higher ranking than a good design with poor maintenance...and in times like these the good designs will rise above some of these others as maintenance budgets are cut....I think...

Mike, I think I told you I took some country club plush Santa Barbarans to Longshadow one day in May and Great Waters the next.

Great Waters is plush, manicured and boring with the exception of a couple of waterfront holes.  Condition A-

Longshadow is currently pretty raggedy as the owner self-destructs but the fairways and greens were playable,  The course is one good hole after another.  Condition C-

My friends preferred Longshadow by a wide margin.

Of course this is an isolated example but means I am not convinced your thesis is 100% true.  Good design is important.

[Forrest Richardson]

Bill — Nice of you to laud Peacock Gap. I took (take) a lot of grunting and complaining, but I stand by our decisions...at least 95% of them. I always have a few components to a project that I regret and would do-over. At Peacock we have received many positive comments and reviews, but we certainly struck a nerve with a few. My work there was a combination of bringing back some of the history, but doing so with modern twists and turns. It is difficult for me to know (in some instances) why those who spoke up loudly to discredit some of the holes would have rather had the Wm. F. Bell course put back as it was in 1968...I doubt so, as it was beginning to fall apart even then from what we found. Besides, except for a few holes with interesting terrain, it was not a very good site and there was virtually nothing done to it by Bell except at the greens, which were Pringles...not even natural potato chips!

Despite a very tough market for memberships, the daily fee aspect of Peacock is doing very well if you back out the acquisition cost — which was substantial, even though I still feel it a good price at the time. You simply cannot sell memberships to a club with an old, falling apart clubhouse      so the reality is that the bank and ownership have to deal with the current market — and that is to find a buyer who has enough cash to complete the clubhouse and the few remaining details of the course. Marin County will likely never have another golf course, at least one in the southern part of the county, so I think it is a good property in many respects. And, as far as SF ever getting ANY new golf course...forget it. Sadly, they cannot seem to deal with those they have now 

[paul cowley]

I've done at least two "new" things in the dirt....found at Barefoot Love and the Patriot GC in SC...does anyone know or agree?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()